What is "macro" mode on 300D?

Look at this gallery:
http://www.freenetsurveys.com/public_gallery/A_Small_World

I also had a Sony F707, but you have now a DSLR. Must get used to. There is no "macro" on the canon DR the way you were used to. The only thing it does is setting the aperture.

ZoomBoy

Kai Hui said:

I know it is supposed for macro (or clsoe-up) shootings, but I
found no use of it. I am wondering if I have done anything wrong.

For instance, 28-135 mm IS lens has the closest distance of 0.45m
(about 18"). That means I can only shoot objects that are 0.45m
away from my camera (the lens, to be exact.). After I turned on
"Macro" mode, it seems that I can't shoot objects any closer.

I used to use Sony 707, I know "macro" really wroked. It allowed me
to shoot objects that were very close to my camera. If the camera
was not turned to "macro" mode, I just could not shoot objects that
were that close.

Am I missing something here?

Kai

Click to expand...

--
ZoomBoy



'All pixels aren't created equal!'

I have the sigma 105, I have two closeup lenses (use them even on top of the sigma!) and I have the nikon 4500
Aren't I a lucky bloke!

Well maybe not, I still cannot do the macro with the canon that I used to do with the nikon.

I haven't been able to test much, as the light is bad, the weather is extremely dull.
I am very glad that I did not trade in the nikon anyway.

My nikon macropictures are here:
http://www.insectphotographers.com

If some wants to know about the hardware I have, or even have me try things, just shout!

Mark Marshall said:

Mark Marshall said:

--

Click to expand...

'Brothers and sisters, we've learned that there's some bad bokeh
going around out there. So like, just be careful man, alright?'
(If Wavy Gravy emceed PMA) http://rhodeymark.instantlogic.com

Click to expand...

--

You are right, but...

but the nikon 4500 when very close does better than 1:1

besides, it is easier to avoid leaves grasses etc when very close.

and..

and the shot is 'more intimate'

reinhard said:

has nothing to do with "how close can I get" but "what
magnification can I get at a given distance"
If you have the choice of getting down to 1:1 at a distance of 2"
or the same 1:1 at 20", I prefer the 20" distance as I can do a lot
beter with light and do not scare away my subject (later is not a
problem if it is a flower...).
And nothing beats a good macro lens or extender ring....

--
Cheers,
Reinhard
(FCAS Charter Member, PBase supporter
Canon 300D, Nikon CP5700, SB26)
http://www.pbase.com/reinhard
http://www.fotki.com/reinhard

Click to expand...

--

That's not the macro I am looking for

http://www.insectphotographers.com is what I do (maybe slow or offline at the moment)

ZoomBoy said:

I also had a Sony F707, but you have now a DSLR. Must get used to.
There is no "macro" on the canon DR the way you were used to. The
only thing it does is setting the aperture.

ZoomBoy

Kai Hui said:

I know it is supposed for macro (or clsoe-up) shootings, but I
found no use of it. I am wondering if I have done anything wrong.

For instance, 28-135 mm IS lens has the closest distance of 0.45m
(about 18"). That means I can only shoot objects that are 0.45m
away from my camera (the lens, to be exact.). After I turned on
"Macro" mode, it seems that I can't shoot objects any closer.

I used to use Sony 707, I know "macro" really wroked. It allowed me
to shoot objects that were very close to my camera. If the camera
was not turned to "macro" mode, I just could not shoot objects that
were that close.

Am I missing something here?

Kai

Click to expand...

--
ZoomBoy



'All pixels aren't created equal!'

Click to expand...

--

reinhard,

reinhard said:

has nothing to do with "how close can I get" but "what
magnification can I get at a given distance"

Click to expand...

Indeed, or maybe, "what magnification can I get any any distance" (and we woild like to see that distance larger rather than smaller!)

But really, it is a different factor we are interested in. For example, if we are shooting a coin 12 mm in diameter, and can achieve a magnification of 1:1 on our 300D, we've done about the best that is usable (getting an image 12 mm high on a frame 15 mm high.

But if on a full-frame 35 mm camera we can achieve that same magnfication (which we would if we used the very same lens), we might not be so delighted, as there we will get an image 12 mm high on a frame 24 mm high.

So if our real objective is to, for example, fill as much of the frame as we can with the image of our subject, so as to best exploit the resolution of the medium (otherwise why would we care?). then the paramater of interest is actually "what is the size of the smallest object whose image can be made to fill the frame". I'm not sure there is even a name for that, but it is certainly not magnification. It is actually the minimum achievable linear (not angular) field-of view.

I suspect he preoccupation of macroists with magnification is rather a hangover from the days when most (but certainly not all) workers were using a consistent frame size. Then you knew if you were trying to photgraph an object 20 mm in diamater, a magnification of 1.0 (1:1) would probably be about right. But not when we are using cameras of different frame sizes.

Best regards,

Doug

. . . it's only the lens barrel, although I am glad to see you.

elckerlyc said:

and the shot is 'more intimate'

Click to expand...

Best regards,

Doug

Obviously on a dslr it's the lens that dictates focusing distance, so this isn't a "macro" mode. But Canon put that little flower on the dial for something.

So the question remains: What does the Close Up Mode really do on the 300D?

Does anyone know?

-n

Nedlyj said:

Obviously on a dslr it's the lens that dictates focusing distance,
so this isn't a "macro" mode. But Canon put that little flower on
the dial for something.

So the question remains: What does the Close Up Mode really do on
the 300D?

Does anyone know?

-n

Click to expand...

Usually it sets the aperture to as wide as possible to shorten depth of field thus throwing the background out of focus

I thought that's what Portrait Mode did? So what's different then about Close Up mode?

I assume, from looking at the manual that the only difference is that Close Up mode varies the iso between 100 and 400 (while portrait maintains iso 100) and close up mode uses single-shot while portrait uses continuous exposures.

Other than that I don't see a lot of difference.

-ned

saxon marsh said:

Nedlyj said:

Obviously on a dslr it's the lens that dictates focusing distance,
so this isn't a "macro" mode. But Canon put that little flower on
the dial for something.

So the question remains: What does the Close Up Mode really do on
the 300D?

Does anyone know?

-n

Click to expand...

Usually it sets the aperture to as wide as possible to shorten
depth of field thus throwing the background out of focus

Click to expand...

Ow, I am flattered,
but doug dear, I don't swing that way..

Doug Kerr said:

elckerlyc said:

and the shot is 'more intimate'

Click to expand...

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

--

Does anyone really use those modes?

I have used sports mode, as it focusses continously,
but the rest can all be better done with P, Av, Tv and M
or am I missing something important?

Nedlyj said:

I assume, from looking at the manual that the only difference is
that Close Up mode varies the iso between 100 and 400 (while
portrait maintains iso 100) and close up mode uses single-shot
while portrait uses continuous exposures.

Other than that I don't see a lot of difference.

-ned

saxon marsh said:

Nedlyj said:

Obviously on a dslr it's the lens that dictates focusing distance,
so this isn't a "macro" mode. But Canon put that little flower on
the dial for something.

So the question remains: What does the Close Up Mode really do on
the 300D?

Does anyone know?

-n

Click to expand...

Usually it sets the aperture to as wide as possible to shorten
depth of field thus throwing the background out of focus

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

elckerlyc said:

I have used sports mode, as it focusses continously,
but the rest can all be better done with P, Av, Tv and M
or am I missing something important?

Nedlyj said:

I assume, from looking at the manual that the only difference is
that Close Up mode varies the iso between 100 and 400 (while
portrait maintains iso 100) and close up mode uses single-shot
while portrait uses continuous exposures.

Other than that I don't see a lot of difference.

-ned

saxon marsh said:

Nedlyj said:

Obviously on a dslr it's the lens that dictates focusing distance,
so this isn't a "macro" mode. But Canon put that little flower on
the dial for something.

So the question remains: What does the Close Up Mode really do on
the 300D?

Does anyone know?

-n

Click to expand...

Usually it sets the aperture to as wide as possible to shorten
depth of field thus throwing the background out of focus

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
-----

Click to expand...

--

elckerlyc

that it doesn't mean 'macro' in the sense of magnification or nearness to subject distance (that's a lens function); yet that camera flower function must do something.

I thought that the only thing the camera could do when in this setting to give a good seperation of something 'up close' from the background is to open the aperature all the way.
It just kinda made sense to me; what about you?

Doug Kerr said:

HoldenMan said:

Doug Kerr wrote:

it's called 'close-up mode', it's on the main dial, where the
little flower is

Click to expand...

Thanks.

This is in part a resuilt of teh fact thaty some people thonk the
little flower means "macro", whereas it actually means various
things related to "close up-ness".

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...